Despite years of across-the-board corporate tax giveaways worth billions of dollars, Canadian corporations just are not investing and not improving their operations.

Will the finance minister admit that sweeping corporate tax cuts have failed to stimulate productivity, and will he instead adopt a plan of targeted assistance in key sectors to protect and create jobs?

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that by 2013 we will have one of the lowest corporate tax rates, between the provinces and the territories, in the G7. We have the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7 by this year, 2010.

This is important for business in Canada, for small and medium size businesses to create jobs in our country. I am sure the NDP member wants to create jobs in Canada.

Steel slabs made in Hamilton by U.S. Steel are being shipped to the U.S., rolled into coils there and then returned to Hamilton for customers like Honda Canada. U.S. Steel is moving Canadian product 1,500 kilometres for processing in the U.S. when Lake Erie Works, a top-notch Canadian facility in Nanticoke, is left sitting idle.

In the Nanticoke plant, 1,100 jobs are on hold while steel is senselessly travelling back and forth across the border. Clearly there is no net benefit to Canada when steel imports from the U.S. are up by 74% in one year.

Will the government stop hiding behind its court case and act to help workers now?

Mike LakeConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to talk about foreign investment and Canada's ability to compete with the world.

Canada has a record of standing up for greater competition under this government. In 2008, foreign direct investment in Canada reached $505 billion, while Canadian investments abroad reached $637 billion, almost $130 billion more than direct investment in Canada.

Competition creates economic growth. It creates innovation and better options for Canadian consumers.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the chief justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal will hear the arguments of the Government of Canada in connection with its intrusion in the securities field. Quebec stands united against such an attack by the federal government in this field of jurisdiction.

Could the Minister of Finance tell this House why he instructed his solicitors to divest Quebec of a financial lever that is vital to the Quebec nation?

Mr. Speaker, the minister better show up in the Pierre-Basile Mignault Room of the Quebec Court of Appeal at 9:30 tomorrow morning.

There are three clear issues. They deal with the Government of Canada's alleged jurisdiction over the regulation and voluntary registration of issuers. In the real world, that is nothing short of an attempt by the federal government to hijack Quebec's financial industry for the benefit of Toronto.

Should the Minister of Finance not focus on the real problems and refrain from breaking something that is working well?

Mr. Speaker, Ann Coulter, the intellectual leader of the North American reform-conservative-republican movement, has the right to make her views known. In fact it is important for Canadians to be exposed to her obscene, radical and intolerant thinking, which underpins the extreme right.

Given her views are completely out of step with mainstream Canadian values, will the Prime Minister stand here today and, without equivocation, publicly denounce her views while explaining to Canadians the link between his party and Ann Coulter?

Pierre PoilievreConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, apparently the member is obsessed about importing the views of an American political commentator. That makes sense given that he imported his leader from the same country. If he actually wants to engage in a broader debate about American politics, he has a leader who would be well qualified to do that.

Speaking of views that are out of touch with mainstream Canadians, that member authored the Liberal carbon tax, which was rejected as a radical job-killing initiative by Canadians.

Pierre PoilievreConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a whole group of vitriolic accusations against a government whose fiscal plan many of his members rose to support just the other day. I wonder if he will berate them with the same vitriol as he blames himself for authoring an out-of-touch, radical, job-killing carbon tax, which led to his party's humiliating defeat in the last election.

Mr. Speaker, for almost 40 years the B.C. coast has been oil tanker free. However, that is now threatened by the Enbridge pipeline proposal that promises to bring tar sand crude from Alberta to B.C.'s coast for export. All it would take is one accident to inflict serious damage on the coastal ecosystem and the economy. The risk is not worth it.

Will the government step away from this pipeline and reaffirm the moratorium on oil tanker traffic?

Mr. Speaker, this is an important Canadian project. We have put in place a high-calibre regulatory review that is commensurate with the importance of the project to ensure the environment is protected.

I can advise my colleague that I, along with the chair of the National Energy Board, created a panel approximately a year ago that consists of three respected Canadians: Sheila Leggett, Hans Matthews, who is himself a member of a first nation, and Kenneth Bateman. Following public consultation, the terms of reference have been defined. They include consideration of all the marine safety issues the hon. member raises.

The government will continue to ensure a comprehensive regulatory review process.

Mr. Speaker, this week a number of first nations, businesses and community organizations from across British Columbia came out against this pipeline proposal and the tanker traffic it would bring along. Yet the government is still working hand in glove with the Enbridge proposal to push this pipeline through.

When asked, the people of British Columbia have said they do not want this pipeline. They do not want the oil tankers off their coast.

Will the government stand with the people of British Columbia and say no to the Enbridge pipeline?

Mr. Speaker, it seems a little early for my hon. colleague to have decided on the merits of the project, given that no application has yet been filed. That is commensurate, I suppose, with that party's approach on matters like the budget.

Nonetheless, we have appointed a review panel that consists of three of the most respected people in our country: Sheila Leggett, who is a sitting member of the National Energy Board, one of the most respected regulators in the country; Hans Matthews, a first nations citizen and an experienced geologist, as I recall; and Kenneth Bateman, a lawyer and also an experienced member of the National Energy Board. They will do a fine job of ensuring a comprehensive environmental review.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Institute for Health Information released its latest report on wait times yesterday. Could the hon. Minister of Health please share some of the good news with members of this House?

Mr. Speaker, the good news is that the report shows real progress in reducing wait times, which has been a priority of our government. We have been working closely with the provinces and territories to deliver health care and it shows that three-quarters of people in priority areas are receiving care within the target wait times.

We have also increased transfers by 6% every year to provinces and territories. As well, an additional $1 billion were invested for the wait time reduction program. We will continue to work with the provinces and territories to improve health care delivery.

Mr. Speaker, disclosure documents revealed that last year the Department of Natural Resources awarded $185,000 to Streetlight Intelligence, a Victoria-based technology company. The company's chairman is the former chair of the natural resources committee, the Conservative member for Calgary Centre.

When the government is telling Canadians that it is time for belt tightening, how does it justify spending hard-earned tax dollars to further the private interests of a Conservative MP?

Mr. Speaker, any spending has to be done with the interest of Canadians taxpayers in mind. I will gladly discuss this specific case with my colleague, who will be able to provide me with further details.

Mr. Speaker, the language rights of Coach Canada bus drivers are not protected by Bill 101, because they are governed by the Canada Labour Code. Since January, drivers in Montreal have been receiving their orders in English from Peterborough, because the company decided to dismiss its francophone dispatchers. This is happening in the second largest French-speaking city in the world, the largest city in the Quebec nation.

Why does the Conservative government refuse to correct this situation, as proposed by the Bloc Québécois?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Official languages are one of this government's top priorities. It is also a matter of great importance to my Bloc colleague. We will take a closer look at this situation and see what we can do.

Mr. Speaker, the Colombian trade deal has taken a sad new twist. Liberals and Conservatives believe they have found a way to fool the public concerned about murders and massacres there. What is it? It is self-monitoring. Unbelievably, the Colombian government gets to grade itself on its human rights record.

Liberals and Conservatives do not care that Colombia has a worsening record of human rights abuses and is the worst in the world for the killing of labour activists, with links to the violence going right up into the government itself.

Why is the government still flogging this amoral deal that repudiates Canadian values?

Mr. Speaker, our government has always been prepared to advance human rights while advancing our trade agenda, unlike the previous government that did not want to talk about human rights when it did the same.

Certainly we are very concerned about the rights of Colombians and that is why in this trade agreement we have parallel provisions relating to labour, which cover human rights, and also with regard to the environment and protecting the rights of the people of Colombia.

We believe that by engaging through trade, we can advance the progress made by the Colombian government in advancing human rights and we are prepared to work together with the opposition in doing that as well.